Talk:T. E. Lawrence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the T. E. Lawrence article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 British military history task force
World War I task force
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Conspiracy theory

This page does not mention that Lawrence's death was extremely suspicious, and similar to that of Princess Diana in the sense that the 'accident' seems to have been caused by MI5 agents.

Ah, the black car causing the bike to flip containing occupants ranging from MI1 operatives to Almighty Latin King Nation (okay, so I tease about that last one). The "extremely suspicious" nature is along the lines of the JFK "second gunman" conspiracy theories. If I can find the article about pederasty, er, murder, I'll put up a link here in Talk. Jaguara 04:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masochistic programme

Years afer the Deraa incident, Lawrence embarked on a masochistic program of physical rehabilitation, including diet, exercise and swimming nude in the North Sea. He recruited younger men from the service and told them an elaborate story about a ficticious uncle who, because Lawrence had stolen money from him, demanded that he enlist in the service and that he be beaten. Lawrence wrote letters purporting to be from the uncle ("R." or "The Old Man") instructing the men in how he was to be beaten, yet also asking them to persuade him to stop this. This treatment continued until his death. Anyone want to source the above? I'm pretty well-read on L's life and I never heard the bit abot the "masochistic program, etc..." In fact, he did the "Old Man" routine with *one* of his enlisted-man friends. I'm going to prune it unless someone's got a source. Tim Bray 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I read it in John E. Mack's A Prince of Our Disorder, which reproduces some of the letters.

Why the EB reference attached to the Deraa torture story? Does it add independent substantiation beyond that which appears in SP? If so, say so. If not, take it out. Or is this a WP style convention I'm too ignorant to know about? Tim Bray 15:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I included a reference because I know there's some dispute as to whether the Dara incident actually happened (I believe elsewhere on this page someone presents a reference to that effect) but that it's such an important part of his legend that it needs to be included, and when there's controversy I generally take Britannica's version of events--as the English language's best known and most widely respected reference source--as the current standard version. I included the reference so no one could simply remove the statement (as opposed to adding references disputing whether the incident took place). The Britannica article's rather extensive bibliography actually doesn't include Seven Pillars, or anything else by Lawrence. But as long as no one objects to including the statement in the article, I'm happy to remove the reference.Binabik80 16:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Orientation

Why do biographical articles in Wikipedia only seem to speak of sexual orientation when it is suspected to be homosexual? If homosexuals require two pages of details on their sex lives, then so do heterosexuals; and if heterosexuals do not require a special section detailing their sexual liaisons, then neither do homosexuals.

As a general rule, since sexual orientation generally pales in comparison to the other events and accomplishments of a person's life, I suggest that the section be dropped unless it can be shown as very obviously relevant to the biography (as in the case of the Marquis de Sade or arguably Oscar Wilde, perhaps). Agateller 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here. The section on sexual orientation is written in such a way (a way I find sensationalist) that it detracts from the rest of the article. TEL's sex life/sexuality is something that biographers constantly argue about and hyperfocus on mainly because TEL's orientation is not clearly known. I suggest that the section be dropped or at least edited for brevity. I also suggest that TEL be removed from the category of "pederastic lovers" unless someone can find strong evidence supporting this (mainly in relation to Dahoum).
Also, the paragraph beginning with "The accusation that Lawrence repeatedly exaggerated his feats..." has zip to do with sexual orientation because this was not about sexual accomplishments but about battles and other information in Seven Pillars. Jaguara06:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Though sensationalism has no place here, it is indeed appropriate to discuss the sexuality of a historic figure when it is out of the ordinary. If historians have found it appropriate to explore, it belongs here. At the same time, I see no problem changing the section to indicate it is about his relationships, since presenting the discussion as a study of his sexual orientation reflects more on us than on the man. As for his being a pederastic lover, since it has been credibly hypothesized, I do not see why we should hide it. I wonder what they (and it) should say about you, were you to move in with a boy in his mid-teens, carve a nude of him, and stick it on the roof of your house. Haiduc 10:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Because I'm a nitpicker, I took word counts of the different articles (with OpenOffice, photo captions as well but they contribute little to the word count)
  • Early years: word count: 453
  • The Arab Revolt: word count: 453
  • Postwar years: 280
  • Death: 173
  • Writings: 125
  • Seven Pillars: 304
  • Revolt in the Desert: 223
  • After his death: 306
  • Sexual Orientation:715
  • Lawrence's vision of the Middle east: 88
  • Trivia: 357
I personally don't care if TEL liked guys, girls, both, neither, camels, camel spiders or pumpkins but 715 words about a historical figure's disputed sexuality does shine the spotlight on one section, effectively taking focus off the other sections. It is large enough to be a WP entry on its own. I move that it should be edited for brevity, deleted, or else made a separate entry with a referring link in the main article.
Quoting HaiducAs for his being a pederastic lover, since it has been credibly hypothesized, I do not see why we should hide it.
"Credible hypothesis" is fancy words for an educated guess. No hard proof has been found. This is more meant for the "list of pederastic lovers category" discussion. If and when I feel like discussing this further, I'll move it there. Jaguara 03:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
ETA: removed Lawrence and Dahoum from "pederastic lovers" category list. No known proof beyond speculation. If anyone cites any, I will revert it. Jaguara 04:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I checked the length of the sexuality section, it is still at 608 words. Can this be reduced any more? LawrenceTrevallion 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide

I'd be happy to un-revert the suicide-speculation claim given some evidence. I have read all the major biographical works and all of TEL's correspondence without having encountered this, and the correspondence in particular makes in very hard to believe. Tim Bray 06:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arab Revolt

The first line states his role in the Arab Revolt is now considered "controversial" but nowhere does the article explain why. This is not very helpful. Viajero 12:53, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. (And when is someone going to write Arab Revolt?) –User:Hajor 01:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Spy

I removed the following from the intro "Supposed to be a Nazis spy in reality". How could Lawrence have been working for the Nazi's in World War One? Lisiate 23:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Boer war influence

What's the historical basis for stating that the Arab guerilla tactics were influenced by the Boers? I have read approximately everything on Lawrence and this is news to me... not saying it's wrong, just saying it's not widely known and should be backed up a bit. Tim Bray 05:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hearing no push-back, I removed the Boer war claim.Tim Bray

[edit] Tabloid this!

What about homosexuality and being raped by Turk soldiers? Include Al-Urens or whatever he was calld by Arabs.

Speaking of, can we please leave that as "sexually assaulted"? First of all, no academic or legal resource would use the phrase "homosexually assaulted" or "homosexually brutilized"; it's childish and sounds uneducated. Second, it's inaccurate, as it implies that 1) only homosexuals forcibly sodomize (not true) and 2) that all male homosexual sex is forced or brutal (again, not true). In the interest of accuracy and maintaining an educated writing style, can we please leave it as I edited it? (I tried to reach a compromise by specifying that all parties were male, but it's really unnecesary to even specify that much - we get it.)

Scientists proved that the sexual assault claim is a fictional story created by Lawrence himself. They proved it by looking to his diary with a special light source to see what was written on the missing pages(when you write, because of the pressure on the paper, it can be discovered what you had written to a page by looking to the next page). Now, historians think that Lawrence dreamed such scene instead of praticing it because, as we all know, Lawrence had extraordinary sexual interests. With respect, teh son of the death heores of the Battle of Kosovo, Deliogul 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm not "all" because I don't know that TEL had "extraordinary sexual interests", whatever that means-- since it can mean different things to different people. To me it means "bloaty vague word-words that tell me nothing and sound like they're coming from someone who's scandalized". Now about the diary page: there's this article. I've seen no evidence that as of that finding, all historians believe that the assault was fabricated thanks to the indentation of one single letter showing up on a page near the missing entry. All historians??? Historians all share one brain? I'm gonna ask the local historians if they suddenly had a revelation about a subject they don't give a rat's behind about. Maybe I should write Ken Burns and ask if he woke up one morning knowing Lawrence made it all up. - Jaguara 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (this comment was brought to you by the letter A).

[edit] Perpetuating false claims?

I'm a bit worried about two claims in this piece: first, that Lawrence persuaded Feisal NOT to take Medina (David Fromkin says that WAS their object, but that they failed); and second, that Lawrence was "involved in" the fall of Damascus. ANZAC troops took Damascus. The Arabs arrived three or four days later, but it was in Britain's interests to make it appear that Syria had fallen to an Arab revolt.

Fromkin also claims there's evidence Lawrence was nowhere near Daraa on the night of the alleged rape; that he was in fact hundreds of miles away in Aqaba.

Any thoughts on these? --Mizchalmers 20:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think both those claims are defensible. Lawrence writes at length about realizing that Medina was an albatross around the Turks' neck and preaching this point of view. Fromkin's essay is hardly scholarly, or is the original well-footnoted and the scholarly apparatus has been lost in the online version? Is his claim that there were one million (!) British soldiers in the Middle East in 1918 really true? In any case, Lawrence claims to have made this argument not just to Feisal but to everyone concerned. Is there any evidence of a serious Arab attempt to take Medina once the Arabs took Aqaba? If you've been in that part of the world and seen the landscape (I have) it's hard to believe that they couldn't have broken the railway and kept it broken.

As to the second, Lawrence is perfectly clear about the events around the fall of Damascus and that the ANZACs were there first; he describes the fighting between the Arabs and the retreating Turks in the land south of Damascus in some detail. Also, my impression is that the city was not in fact defended to any significant degree by the Turks, who were in fairly full retreat by this stage. I'm not aware that his narrative has been impeached, so "involved" seems OK. In any case, it is clear that TEL and the Arab leadership were actually established in Damascus substantially before the British leadership showed up, so once again "involved" seems easy to defend. Tim Bray (Sep. 18/2004)

[edit] Urens

As someone who once had quite a bit of Arabic, I've always been quite certain that this usage is because Arabs who didn't know TEL and heard his name in speech mistook the leading 'L' for a contraction of the definite article "al", thus "Al Aurens" - which would be a very natural mistake for an Arabic-speaker, even though there are Arabic proper nouns beginning in 'L' (consider Lebanon for example). I'm hoping that we have a decent Arabic philologist here who would write this up authoritatively. Tim Bray (Sep. 18/2004)

[edit] Gertrude Bell

According to Gertrude Bell's article:

"[...] she was the unrecognised brains behind the Arab revolt in World War I - for which Lawrence of Arabia was unfairly given most of the credit - [...]"

"[...] especially as she saw so much attention being paid to Lawrence of Arabia, who had, compared to her, been more of a side-show than a serious player in the Arab revolt."

There is no mention of her here. I'm not sure what to change or add in a tactful way. Iaen 11:47, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Holy cow, that claim about Bell is either ridiculous or needs to be backed up by evidence I haven't seen. Tim Bray 08:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] film

I think the film deserves a bit more prominence in this article. With all due respect to Lawrence (the man), the film is more famous than the man, and the film actually made the man more famous than he was, and the two have become entwined in public consciousness to a large extent. 4.31.88.72 14:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Lawrence is actually a more controversial figure than this article makes out, some have argued that he was a bit of a fantasist. There is a school of thought that the Deraa (sp?) incident was a sexual fantasy, it was even included in the Penguin Book of Lies (or something like that). I read one Arab writer who looked into his case and spoke to some people who took part in the Arab revolt who thought there was no way he could have passed as an Arab native speaker in disguise, in fact there were even other British officers around at the time who spoke Arabic better than Lawrence. PatGallacher 23:59, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

You may be right, but I've read every published word by Lawrance and all the major biographies and am fairly well-educated about the Middle-Eastern campaign in WW1, and I don't think there's enough evidence to back up anything very specific. Most of the negative material about Lawrence is helpfully concentrated in Richard Aldington's biography, but most of Aldington's material has been further discussed by subsequent biographers, and to the extent there's consensus, I think the current article is not far off it. Tim Bray 04:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caption of the third picture

... is really confusing. There are five men on the picture, but the caption talks about three.


>>Added names of four of the five men in picture. --Jaguara

what is the source of identifing the dark-skinned man in the upper right corner as Faisal's slave? His dress and demeanor seem to make this unlikely. Also, why would a slave be in the photo? or why not behind Faisal? --RS

[edit] T.E. Lawrence Studies List

From T.E. Lawrence Studies List, there are these concerns, which I feel are very legitimate, so I pass them on for consideration, and for the public to be aware of (NOTE - The comments below were written by Jeremy Wilson, T.E. Lawrence's official biographer, after recently viewing Wikipedia's entries on TEL):

A major encyclopedia will commission articles from people it thinks are expert in the field. Wikipedia, though certainly interesting, lacks any authority.
The current Lawrence article has its problems, both in overall balance - which you can't expect to be right in a work compiled in such a way - and in detail, as indicated below:
>>His father, Thomas Chapman, was a minor member of the nobility<< Thomas Chapman was a significant member of the Irish aristocracy
>>who had escaped a tyrannical wife to live with a maid<< The 'maid' was his daughters' governess - a rather different relationship to the one implied by 'maid'. Likewise, a governess would have had a much better education than a maid. At that time many maids could not read.
>>with whom he had five sons in close succession<< What is meant by "close succession"? AW was 12 years younger than TE, let alone Bob.
>>from [Jesus College] he graduated with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_classification>First Class Honours largely on account of a highly-acclaimed thesis<< If I recall correctly, one of the examiners described his other papers as "a safe first".
>>On leaving university he commenced a postgraduate degree in mediaeval pottery, which he soon abandoned after he was offered the opportunity to become a practicing archaeologist in the Middle East<< Only more or less correct. He started postgraduate research on mediaeval pottery (you cannot really commence a research "degree"). He remained a senior demy at Magdalen through his time at Carchemish (and through the war, if I recall correctly). I don't know if he ever formally gave up the thesis, but it would not have been before the Carchemish excavations looked set to last far longer than originally proposed. So "soon after" is wrong.
>>In the late summer of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911>1911 he returned to England for a brief sojourn and, by November, he was back en route to Beirut.<< This does not even hint that a second Carchemish season was in doubt.
>>In January <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914>1914 Woolley and Lawrence were co-opted by the British military as an archaeological smokescreen for a British military survey of the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_peninsula>Sinai peninsula.<< This implies that the British military selected them, which was not the case. The Palestine Exploration Fund, delegated to organise the survey, borrowed them from the British Musuem.
>>Following the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914, on advice from <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S.F._Newcombe&action=edit>S.F. Newcombe, Lawrence did not enlist immediately, but held back until October.<< Lawrence had difficulty joining up. He was under-height. Eventually D.G.Hogarth found him a job in the Geographical Section of the War Office.
>>Once enlisted he was posted to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo>Cairo, where he worked for British Military Intelligence. Lawrence's intimate knowledge of the Arab people made him the ideal liaison between British and Arab forces and in October 1916 he was sent into the desert to report on the Arab nationalist movements<< Wow! How's that for skimming? Misleading? Yes!
>>in extended <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla>guerrilla operations against the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire>Ottoman Empire<< I suppose it has to say "Ottoman Empire" rather than "Turkish forces" because that's the link Wikipedia wants to use. However, Lawrence and Feisal were not fighting the Ottoman Empire (which included many Arabs). They were fighting the Ottoman forces.
>>Lawrence's major contribution to World War I was convincing Arab leaders to coordinate their revolt to aid British interests << Truly, a thoroughbred American anti-Imperialist opinion. Ignorant Europeans doubtless maul American history in a similar manner. But hey! This piece is supposed to be about T.E. Lawrence. Why not put away our transatlantic prejudices and try to write accurately?
>>In <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917>1917 Lawrence arranged a joint action with the Arab irregulars and forces under <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auda_Abu_Tayi>Auda Abu Tayi (until then in the employ of the Ottomans) against the strategically-located port city of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqaba>Aqaba. On <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_6>July 6, after a daring overland attack, Aqaba fell to Arab forces. In November he was recognised at Dara while reconnoitering the area in Arab dress and was apparently sexually assaulted by the (male) Turkish garrison before he was able to escape <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Britannica>Encyclopædia Britannica, 2003). Some 12 months later, Lawrence was involved in the capture of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus>Damascus in the final weeks of the war.<< Oh my God! Is that all there is to say about Lawrence's role in Feisal's Syrian campaign? Even Robert Bolt did a better job than that!
>>As he did before the war, during the time he spent with the Arab irregulars, Lawrence adopted many local customs and traditions as his own, and soon became a close friend of Prince Feisal. He especially became known for wearing white Arabian garb (given to him by Prince Feisal, originally wedding robes given to Feisal as a hint) and riding on a horse in the desert. << This has to be be a flash-back - we've already reached Damascus. And when did Lawrence ride a horse?
>>Immediately after the war Lawrence worked for the British <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Office> Foreign Office, attending the Versailles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Conference%2C_1919>Paris Peace Conference, 1919 between January and May as a member of Feisal's delegation. Through most of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921> 1921 he served as an advisor to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill>Winston Churchill at the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Office>Colonial Office.<< Did Lawrence ever work for the Foreign Office? What happened at the Peace Conference? What happened in the gap between Paris and the Colonial Office? What happened in 1922?
>>A fresh burst of publicity resulted in his assignment to a remote base in what is now <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan>Pakistan in mid-<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1927>1927, where he remained until the beginning of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929>1929<< Really? A fact-checker would amend at least three things here.
>>leaving [the RAF] with considerable regret in early 1935. A few months later he died<< Or maybe, "A few weeks later".
>>A large proportion of his writing was epistolary; he was an avid correspondent, often sending multiple letters per day<< This seems to me to make a similar point three times over.
>>His correspondents included many notable figures of the time, including <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw>George Bernard Shaw and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Elgar>Edward Elgar.<< What about all the others? Winston Churchill, Robert Graves, E.M.Forster, ....
>>While his writings include one notably <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoerotic>homoerotic passage (see "Quotations" below), the details of his sexual orientation and experience remain unknown.<< I think that in this instance "homoerotic" may be somewhat narrowly defined. There are a number of descriptions in Seven Pillars that modern readers would class (rightly or wrongly) as homoerotic. By contrast, the passage quoted in Wikipedia does not strike me as homoerotic at all. In it Lawrence is talking about others, not himself.
JW

Trishymouse

Identification of "S.A." - maybe Saudi Arabia?

Or Hittite for "you'll never guess in a million years"? Jaguara 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

One theory about Lawrence's accusations of homosexuality...

The British and Arabians differ greatly in the unity that their soldiers share. To the Arabs, brotherhood is highly valued. Many Arab soldiers would have and did gladly die for another man. Over in Britain, the army was much more organized, formal, and strict.

Such a bond between two men is not normal in Britain, and Lawrence clearly was very attuned to Arab customs.


In addition, a white-skinned homosexual would not have lasted long in 1920's Arabia, much less lead a rebellion against the Ottoman State.

[edit] Hero for the Arabs?

I've heard that in fact Lawrence is regarded, by modern Arab historians, as a traitor who didn't fulfill his promises after the victory, and as a lesser figure in the Arab revolt than he's usually thought to be. Here is an article about it: http://www.al-bushra.org/arabwrld/lawrance.htm Maybe the last sentence in the first para is not balanced enough. 01 Sep 2005

I certainly think so. I live in Syria and am reasonably well acquainted with popular views of Arab history. I'm not sure that that many people have even heard of Lawrence, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that he's regarded as a traitor.Palmiro | Talk 12:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Right. I've lived in Saudi Arabia for many years now and TE Lawrence is hated and depised by the people I've talked to because of his involvement in shattering what was once a unified (if Turkish) Islamic caliphate. There is nothing that supports the contention that he's loved by Arabs. If anything, signs point against it. Perhaps it should be deleted, especially that it's not supported by proof in that page in any way.--PsychoticClown 10:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writings and Revolt in the Desert

Lawrence's book "Revolt in the Desert" isn't at all mentioned in his liturature section, also it has come to my attention that theres quite a few "first American printings" out and about.

I found the same thing! Perhaps this link [1] explains it, and adds an interesting view as to why Lawrence was not much richer. I have started to play around with this section - you can find my current piece at User:Trident13/TE Lawrence - Writings Rgds, --Trident13 08:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Subsequently updated in main article. Rgds, --Trident13 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a hero to Arabs

T. Lawrance is NOT considered a hero by the Arabs. The truth his even today, Arab's say he was a traitor. He united them by telling them they will get independance, but were shocked when after the war they weren't granted the promised freedom. Lawrance knew about Britain's real intentions but hid it from the Arabs. And it was this guilt that he also refused a medal by the English King and was emotionally and psychologically troubled. Tuctuc

While in general terms there may be truth in this statement, I believe it is overly simplistic to suggest that Lawrence was a "traitor" to the Arabs. Lawrence was certainly not privy to the negotiations between the United Kingdom, France and Russia that resulted in the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement and which, along with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, was the basis for the post war division of the Middle East. He ultimately was made aware of these agreements, although there is some lack of clarity as to exactly when. The fact that he did not immediately divulge the contents of these agreements to his Arab allies certainly cuts to the core of his divided loyalties. But there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that he deliberately and maliciously misled the Arabs so as to ensure the fulfilment of European objectives in the Middle East (as per Sykes-Picot). On the contrary, he pushed for the entry of Faisal into Damascus before the Allied forces, and the earliest possible creation of an Arab civil administration. When confronted by General Allenby with the reality of Allied intentions, he immediately departed Damascus, and the war. At the Paris Peace Conference, he worked directly with the Arab delegation under the leadership of Faisal in an attempt to salvage some vestige of Arab self rule. Not exactly the behaviour one would expect from a "traitor". The fact that there is a perception in the Arab world that Lawrence was less than honest in his dealings with Faisal may have more to do with the nature and amount of literature on the subject available in Arabic, although I am woefully ill informed in this area. Psarj 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing image

There is an image, "FaisalPartyAtVersaillesCopy.jpg", just under the "Postwar years" heading that is missing in both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I have commented it out until someone either uploads it or deletes the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeological smokescreen?

It says in the very last paragraph of the Early Years section, that Lawrence was part of an "archaeological smokescreen for a British military survey of the Sinai peninsula." Exactly what does this mean?

Prior to the war, Lawrence and his mentor Leonard Woolley were funded by the Palestine Exploration Fund to search for an area referred to in the Bible as the "Wilderness of Zin", and along the way to undertake an archeological survey of the Negev Desert. This area was of strategic importance as it would have to be crossed by any Turkish army attacking Egypt when war ultimately broke out. They did publish a report of the expedition's findings, but it is generally believed that the significant product was updated mapping of the area, with attention paid to features of military significance such as water sources. See [2] --Psarj 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabs...Far From Rebellion

In the reign of Yavuz Sultan Selim(Selim I.), the Ottoman Empire conquered the whole Middle-East and Egypt. For more than four hundred years, Arabs lived in peace and they did whatever they want. Then in the years before and during the World War I, T. E. Lawrence came to these lands. He fooled Arab tribe leaders with money and promises. He was saying that these tiny leaders would become kings and they would be very rich. So Arabs believed in Lawrence and they perfidiously betrayed to the Ottoman Empire. Thousands of Turkish warriors murdered by these trickster Arabic soldiers. After the war, Great Britain didn't give Arabs what they were promised. British leaders divided Middle-East into tiny countries and they put puppet kings to the heads of these new formed countries. While Great Britian enjoyed the power of Petrol, they left Arabic world in a primitive living. As we all know, the world still tries to fix the things done to the Middle-East by the powerful countries in the world in the beginning of the 20. century. ---Delioğul 05/16/2006

I'm afriad I disagree with this entirely. The arabs wanted freedom from the ottomans, they were enslaved, and had been fighting for independence before Lawrence was on the scene. You realize that you are writing this from a strongly pro turkish view (I wouldn't be surprised if you were turkish). The arabs were offered money, but this was so they fought together under Faisal, and drove the turks out of the middle east. The British and French wanted power in the middle east, and Lawrence knew little about this. This was classified information - and Lawrence was just an officer in Cairo. It wasn't Great Britain who promised the arabs things, it was Lawrence, and it was out of Lawrences control as to what happened. Lines were drawn on the map to signify boundaries, ignoring totally the ethnic and tribal areas. That is why today Iraq is such a mess. It has Curdish, Sunni and Shia muslims all in one country, when it would be better to have 3 countries. Lawrence tried desperately to fix the problems caused, he was at the infamous Treaty of Versailles, representing the arabs with Faisal. He led such a secrative life afterwards, and changed his name because he was ashamed of what he had promised and failed to deliver, thats why he changed his name to Shaw etc. The turks weren't the peacekeepers in the middle east, they were the enemy in Lawrences time. Segafreak2 11:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence of Arabia

Should Lawrence of Arabia (history) be a redirect to the man, a redirect to the film, or a disambiguation page? Sgt Pinback 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question! I'm all for Lawrence of Arabia to redirect to the film. The film article clearly states "Lawrence of Arabia is an Academy Award-winning film based, with some licence, on the life of T. E. Lawrence." and has a link to the TEL article. I don't see the need for a disambiguation page since there would be only two entries on it (though I can also see where it may be useful). Jaguara 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it should redirect to the man. I think that is the more common usage of the phrase. Also I think it would seem normal to people if the Lawrence of Arabia article was about the fellow himself and had a link to the film. The other way around would be a bit strange. (Note that I usually work on the history side rather than entertainment so I may be biased.) --Cjrother 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Definately the man. You don't see God redirected to the Kingdom of Heaven (film) do you? Then neither should Lawrence. Segafreak2 11:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The precedent is already clearly established. "Iwo Jima" wouldn't refer to "Sand of Iwo Jima" (1949 John Wayne movie), "Sahara" wouldn't refer to the 2005 movie based on the Clive Cussler novel. Movies are made from the real-world people, places, things. The Wikipedia should refer to the real-world, and link (as appropriate) to related items of interest. Thaimoss 12:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Pillars, and SA

Has it occurred only to me that "S.A." means "Saudi Arabia"?

Seven Pillars of Wisdom is dedicated to "S.A.", with a poem that begins:

"I loved you, so I drew these tides of men into my hands and wrote my will across the sky in stars To gain you Freedom, the seven-pillared worthy house, that your eyes might be shining for me When I came."

He desired independence for Saudi Arabia ("To gain you Freedom"); it is unlikely that he is referring to a person as a "seven-pillared worthy house;" (but I suppose he could be referring to "Freedom" by this); and he was a stranger who had come into Saudi Arabia. To find some kind of latent homosexual content in this passage seems quite obviously tortured given how much more reasonable the Saudi Arabia as S.A. thesis is (or any other thesis, for that matter). Before you reply that it was then called Arabia and not Saudi Arabia, I suggest that Lawrence, above all others, wanted a "Saudi" Arabia when he contemplated its future. The House of Saud was the one the British, and Lawrence, obviously preferred.

I could be wrong about the S.A. thing, but if you think that Lawrence meant something having to do with a sexual act with the final line "When I came," I would say that you must be of the opinion that T.E. Lawrence, despite his extremely high intelligence and uncommon facility in the English language, was quite an obvious and unimaginative poet. Robert.


The Article assumes that the identification of SA is pretty much established and gives the greatest space to one theory. However, it is a debated concept and the article does not reflect this uncertainty very well. --Blue Tie 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Re: "The House of Saud was the one the British, and Lawrence, obviously preferred." Lawrence was most difinitely NOT a supporter of the House of Saud, but rather of the Hashemite royal family who ruled in the Hejaz before the Saudi's overthrew them (1926). During World War I, there was disagreement between the British Egyptian and Indian administrations as to who, ultimately, they should support to take over Arabia once the Turks were out of the picture. The Egyptians, with whom Lawrence worked, supported King Hussein and the Hashemite family, and sponsored their "Arab Revolt". The Indian government, which was involved in the Mesopotomian campaign on the other side of the the Arabian peninsula attempted unsuccesfully to foster a similar revolt amongst the tribes in central Arabia, taking a particularly interest in Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. One of the key British players in this theatre of the war was Harry St John Philby, father of Kim Philby. --Psarj 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually came in to correct my errant entry re: Lawrence's support of the House of Saud. You are correct. Robert.

[edit] Weasel Words

I deleted the entire section about the attitudes of Britons and Middle Eastern people towards TE. All of the statements and arguements about either his hero or villian status are completely unquantifiable by encyclopedic standards, and therefore are explictly forbidden on Wikipedia (for a definition... Weasel_word ). Besides that they are going to create useless arguement that distract from improving the general quality of the article. If you want to say that Arabs name their children after him or hate him, back it up with a credible source orr desist. Thanks VanTucky 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/2E/_/Talk%7ET._E._Lawrence_3c4e.html"